These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[February] Wreck Hitpoint Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#161 - 2016-02-05 16:50:39 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking Big smile.
Ganker carebears ?
Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol
Gankers are invariably carebears, this is just the way it is. Think about it, they hide in highsec, fly only cheap disposable ships, only go after weak targets and freak out on the forums when anyone suggests giving other people more ways to fight back, increasing their risk or decreasing their reward. The only difference between them and a mission runner that cries on the forum a lot is the colour of the icons they are shooting at.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#162 - 2016-02-05 17:10:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking Big smile.
Ganker carebears ?
Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol
Gankers are invariably carebears, this is just the way it is. Think about it, they hide in highsec, fly only cheap disposable ships, only go after weak targets and freak out on the forums when anyone suggests giving other people more ways to fight back, increasing their risk or decreasing their reward. The only difference between them and a mission runner that cries on the forum a lot is the colour of the icons they are shooting at.

Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#163 - 2016-02-05 17:28:27 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
tears of a banned input multiplex ice miner

Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think

Dom.

Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.

Evil RatKid
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#164 - 2016-02-05 17:30:35 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
tears of a banned input multiplex ice miner

Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think

Dom.

Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.

Ohhhhh ty for letting me know Twisted

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#165 - 2016-02-05 17:50:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think
Well that's really not the way it works.
Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself.

Dom Arkaral wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dom.

Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.
Ohhhhh ty for letting me know Twisted
This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly.

In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#166 - 2016-02-05 18:09:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think
Well that's really not the way it works.
Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself.

Dom Arkaral wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dom.

Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.
Ohhhhh ty for letting me know Twisted
This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly.

In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments.

Jesus the salt,
And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do.
And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE.

Deal with it Cool

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Hirisho Presolana
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#167 - 2016-02-05 18:49:26 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.

Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.

We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.


The current planned numbers are:

Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp
Destroyer: 1000 hp
Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp
Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp
Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp
Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp
Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp
Titan: 30000 hp

The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think.
Thanks!


what if the HP decrease slowly?
this will make sense to the wreck despawn after a certain ammount of time..
also, bigger wrecks will gloriously stay around for more time..
at 10HP per minute, frigate wrecks will stay up for more or less 1hour, while titan wrecks for 50 hours!
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#168 - 2016-02-05 21:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Skalle Pande
Hirisho Presolana wrote:

what if the HP decrease slowly?
this will make sense to the wreck despawn after a certain ammount of time..
also, bigger wrecks will gloriously stay around for more time..
at 10HP per minute, frigate wrecks will stay up for more or less 1hour, while titan wrecks for 50 hours!

A really nice and simple idea - would improve many things at the same time. +1
edit:Remember to do it to NPC wrecks too
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#169 - 2016-02-05 21:17:24 UTC
Zxl wrote:
5. Player who shoots at the wreck should still get flagged as attacker unless the wreck belongs to him.
6. Destroying a wreck that doesn't belong to the attacker ,1in high sec should produce kill right for the attacker's head.


It already works that way.
Knitram Relik
State War Academy
Caldari State
#170 - 2016-02-05 21:41:54 UTC
Good change. I fleet of 20 that pop a freighter shouldn't have the spoils of their honorable PvP thwarted by one spoil sport. Yay ganking buff!

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's really hard to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Drammie Askold
Hideaway Hunters
The Hideaway.
#171 - 2016-02-05 23:16:59 UTC
A good idea, glad it's happening.

As the blessed St. Reptilicus said "Some days you can't get a drink on the cuff anyplace."
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#172 - 2016-02-06 06:31:55 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Carebears can't stand up for themselves..
Gankers, and pretty much every one else can.
It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think
Well that's really not the way it works.
Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself.

Dom Arkaral wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dom.

Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.
Ohhhhh ty for letting me know Twisted
This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly.

In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments.

Jesus the salt,
And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do.
And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE.

Deal with it Cool

Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.

One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.

Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack).
Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.

Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky.
Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.

The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.

A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)

Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it.
Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#173 - 2016-02-06 06:44:51 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.

One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.

Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack).
Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.

Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky.
Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.

The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.

A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)

Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it.
Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.


Or you could use the current mechanics available.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#174 - 2016-02-06 12:26:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.

One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.

Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack).
Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.

Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky.
Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.

The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.

A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)

Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it.
Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.


Or you could use the current mechanics available.
Those are?
What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#175 - 2016-02-06 13:17:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Jesus the salt,
And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do.
And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE.

Deal with it Cool
ROFL. Yeah, I'm the salty one. That must be it. Kids and their memes these day. Roll

I didn't ask you to go against your "brothers". Just to understand that balance works both ways and that continuously demanding easy gameplay and rejecting challenging changes makes them carebears. If you also hate a challenge and want to stick with easymode gameplay, be my guest, but I'll continue to push for EVE to be more challenging for all sides, not just the ones I'm not on.

baltec1 wrote:
Or you could use the current mechanics available.
By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#176 - 2016-02-06 21:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Those are?
What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.



You don't need to kill him to beat him. A simple web ship defeats a bumping ship before it can even get up to speed.

Lucas Kell wrote:
By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are.


According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#177 - 2016-02-06 21:31:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Those are?
What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.



You don't need to kill him to beat him. A simple web ship defeats a bumping ship before it can even get up to speed.

Lucas Kell wrote:
By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are.


According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates.


but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get Pirate

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2016-02-06 23:54:29 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:

but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get Pirate

So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#179 - 2016-02-06 23:55:43 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:

but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get Pirate

So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps.


every pilot ends up having more than one account
and my solution is easy, let someone else do it (Like Siggy <3)

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2016-02-07 00:25:27 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:

every pilot ends up having more than one account

A simple "yes" would suffice.